Monday, March 21, 2016

Op-ed: No Considering, No Hearing, No Vote, No Nothing...Period

Op-ed: No Considering, No Hearing, No Vote, No
Nothing...Period By: Diane Sori/
The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on http://www.americanpbn.com

“You’re going to be surprised at how hard we’re going to work to make
sure this is on the front pages of all the papers.”
- Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid on Obama and the Democrats efforts to get Merrick Garland
appointed to the Supreme Court

So Obama went and did what we knew he would do...as in the midst of a
hotly contested election cycle he went and nominated someone...Chief
Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court Merrick Garland...to be his choice to
move the Supreme Court to the far left and assure his liberal legacy on
the High Court for decades to come. Garland, a former U.S. Attorney and a
federal judge since 1997, was appointed to the circuit court by
President Bill Clinton... was once considered for a cabinet post and
clerked for ubber liberal Justice William Brennan...and this is who Obama hopes
will fill the vacancy left by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death.

And while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow
Republicans in the Senate have said in no uncertain terms will they even
consider, hold hearings, or vote on Garland’s nomination until the next
president takes office, they are on shaky ground for the fact is that
the GOP hold on the Senate is tenuous at best, what with some Republican
senators who are fighting to keep their seats saying that they are at
least willing to meet and talk with Garland as a way to fend off the
continuing Democratic attacks that they are being unfair. And that
includes Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin who said, “I’ll meet with
the guy, but trust me: We’re not going to let the Supreme Court flip,”
adding that, "And this nominee obviously would flip the court,
particularly on an issue that is pretty important in Wisconsin." And
joining him in those sentiments are Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and
Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota...just to name a few.

And so to that affect, we now have Obama's people putting together
what's known as 'The Constitutional Responsibility Project' for the sole
purpose of advocating for Obama's nominee, and this group has said they
will work with MoveOn.org...and we all know about them now don't
we...who is planning 'MoveOn Days of Action' that being rallies in states with
'vulnerable' Republican senators to gain support for the nomination. And
the Ohio teachers union will be doing what's being called 'Your Job
Learn-ins' in an effort to convince Republican Senator Rob Portman to
vote for Garland. And in Pennsylvania, unions for nurses and
firefighters will hold rallies to try and force Senator Pat Toomey to
meet with Garland and back a hearing.

But no matter the advocacy, the fact remains that it's the Senate who holds the trump card on
appointees while it's Congress who decides how many justices make up the
High Court at any given time by simply voting on it. This means the still
for now Republican controlled Congress may either increase, decrease, or
keep the number static as per the now number of nine...knowing that
eight would split the ideologies of the Court straight down the
political middle resulting in nothing being accomplished. But it is
imperative that whatever they do they keep said number on the
conservative side or it will take generations to undo what a liberal
leaning Court can and most likely would do.

And it seems 'We the People' agree on the 'political complexion' of
the Court as a recent survey found that a majority of people believed
the High Court should be more conservative in its leanings than it being
liberal in its leanings...as in wanting this Supreme Court to be a
constructionist court where the justices interpret the law as laid down
in the Constitution instead of it being a judicially active court who as expected would push a liberal agenda.

And in deciding a nominee to place on the bench it must never be
forgotten that the job of the Supreme Court is to invalidate
legislation, lower court rulings, or executive actions which, in the
High Court's 'considered judgment' conflict with the Constitution. And
here is where Obama's nominating Democratic party member Merrick Garland...who he calls a
centrist and consensus-builder who in reality is anything but...crosses
over into very dangerous grounds for with the Supreme Court being
primarily an appellate court...which means that it decides whether lower
courts made 'correct decisions' about the law during trials or earlier
appeals...they can with the wrong majority cause serious harm or even
invalidate our Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

And with Obama still our president...a president who has nothing but
contempt for the Second Amendment and for we law-abiding gun
owners...our Constitutionally given right to “keep and bear arms” is
indeed in serious jeopardy, what with Obama's constant cries and his
lobbying for even more gun control than there already is. Now add to
that the simple fact that with the wrong balance of political power the
Court's decision and Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in the 'District
of Columbia v. Heller'...considered by gun rights activists to be the
most important Second Amendment case in history...can and most likely
would be overturned. And that folks is why Obama is pushing so hard to
nominate Merrick Garland...a liberal learning, gun-hating justice post haste. Remember,
this decision was the one which forced the District of Columbia...ground
zero for Obama...to permit it's 'law-abiding' citizens their right to
"keep and bear arms” and was soon followed by 'McDonald v.
Chicago,' where Scalia joined with Justice Alito's opinion stating that
the individuals right to “keep and bear arms” is a fundamental right
and applies to all Americans regardless of where they live.

But what must be noted here is that both decisions were 5-to-4 party
line decisions, and while both these decisions allowed our Second
Amendment rights to stand as our Founders and Framers intended...much to
Obama's chagrin and consternation...know that these most important of
rulings can be overturned with a majority shift on the bench as most
people forget that the Supreme Court can legally overrule and reverse
itself when and if a different case involving the same Constitutional
issues as the earlier case...in this instance 'District of Columbia v.
Heller'...is reviewed by the Court and seen in a new light because of
changing social and political situations...which in turn would have a
domino affect on 'McDonald v. Chicago.' And know that Obama has the
cases he needs lined up and currently working their way through the
lower courts, assuring their presentation to the High Court the
minute the majority shifts to the left.

“This is not a good nomination and should not be confirmed,” said Alan Gottlieb of the 'Second Amendment Foundation.'

And Alan Gottlieb is right for Merrick Garland's stance on gun rights is
indeed the most compelling reason...but there are others as well...as
to why he must never be appointed to the Supreme Court for Garland is
not now nor has he ever been an advocate of our Constitutionally given
Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.” And one only has to look
at his record of opposing gun rights as a federal judge...a record
which includes his 2007 vote to undo the D.C. Circuit Court decision
that struck down Washington D.C.’s strict handgun ban. Voting to undo
'Parker v. District of Columbia'...the predecessor to the 'District of
Columbia v. Heller'...Garland was one of four dissenting judges who
voted to reconsider the ban on handguns. The other six judges on the
appeals court voted not to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court went
on to rule in 'District of Columbia v. Heller' that the Second Amendment
does indeed guarantee an individual’s right to "keep and bear arms."

And Garland has indicated he might consider revisiting these cases,
and know that the four liberal justices currently sitting on the bench
would give him the majority power to do so. So much for our Second
Amendment rights and Obama knows well that this is exactly how the scenario will
play out.

Remember too, that 'Parker v. District of Columbia' is not the only
time Merrick Garland has ruled against gun rights. In 2000, in NRA vs.
Reno, Garland ruled against the National Rifle Association (who said
they would lobby against Garland’s appointment) in a lawsuit challenging
the Department of Justice's handling of gun purchaser’s information. As
per then AG Janet Reno's argument that it was both necessary and
allowed under the Brady Act for information to be retained for six
months in order to audit the background check system, Garland ruled in
her favor saying that it was indeed permissible for the DOJ to keep said
records from the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) for the time
period stated. And he did so over the NRA’s (rightful) argument that
this practice effectively created an illegal national registry...which
it indeed would have.

"Judge Garland is the kind of nominee people get when you make deals in Washington, D.C.,” so says Ted Cruz, Republican presidential candidate...and how right he is.

And so the bottom line remains that Barack HUSSEIN Obama would never
nominate anyone who was not a leftist as his hatred for the right clouds
every call he makes. This makes it imperative that Republicans stand
strong and united against anyone Obama nominates as those in the
Republican hierarchy must be made to know that it's 'We the
People'...that it's we voters...who should be the ones weighing in on
that decision by electing a new Republican conservative president who in
turn will be the one choosing a new conservative nominee. Remember, the wrong
appointee could very well alter the direction of the court and our
beloved country for a generation or more.